Jharkhand High Court
Rajeet Kumar Jha vs The State Of Jharkhand on 30 June, 2025
Author: Sanjay Prasad
Bench: Sanjay Prasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 129 of 2025
....
Rajeet Kumar Jha, aged about 38 years, son of Prafulla Jha,
resident of village; Charakmara, P.O. & P.S.-Mohanpur,
Dist.:Deoghar ...... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand
..... Respondent
With
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 157 of 2025
....
Jintu Jha, aged about 32 years, son of Late Krishna Nanda Jha @
Krishna Nand Jha, resident of village: Charakmara, P.O. & P.S.
Mohanpur, Dist.:Deoghar ...... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand
..... Respondent
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD
-----
For the Appellant : Mr. Pran Pranay, Advocate
(both these appeals)
For the State : Mr. Tarun Kumar, A. P. P.
(both these appeals)
.......
06/30.06.2025 I. A. No. 5723 of 2025 (In Cr. Appeal (S.J) No.129 of
2025 & I.A. No.5788 of 2025 (In Cr. Appeal (S.J) No.157 of 2025)
This Criminal Appeal has been filed on behalf of both the
appellants challenging the impugned judgment of conviction
dated 18.01.2025 and sentence dated 20.01.2025 passed by Sri
Rajendra Kr. Sinha, learned Additional Sessions Judge-III,
Deoghar in connection with S.T. Case No.63 of 2018 arising out
of Mohanpur P.S. Case No.11 of 2011, corresponding to G.R.
No.51 of 2011 by which the appellants have been convicted for
the offences under Section 25 (1 A) read with Section 35 of the
Arms Act and both of them have been sentenced to undergo R. I.
for a period of seven (7) years each and to pay the fine of Rs.
15,000/- (Rs. Fifteen Thousand) each. All the sentences have
directed to run concurrently.
However, learned trial court acquitted the appellants for the
offence under Section 26(2) of the Arms Act.
2. I. A. No. 5723 of 2025 has been filed in Cr. Appeal (S.J.)
No.129 of 2025 on behalf of the appellant namely, Ranjeet
Kumar Jha under Section 430 (1) of BNSS and I.A. No.5788 of
2025 has been filed in Cr. Appeal (S.J) No.157 of 2025 on behalf
of the appellant namely, Jintu Jha under Section 430 (1) of
BNSS for the suspension of their respective sentence and for
grant of bail, during the pendency of these Criminal Appeals.
3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that
the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the
learned Court below are illegal and not sustainable in law. It is
submitted that seizure list witnesses, namely, Ram Krishna
Yadav and Pinku Kumar Raut were examined as P.W.-2 and
P.W.-3 and P.W.-4 and P.W.-5 have been declared hostile by the
prosecution. It is submitted that the police had also recovered
one country made pistol and one .303 cartridge from possession
of appellant Ranjeet Kumar Jha [in Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.129 of
2025] whereas one country made pistol like Air gun has
recovered from possession of appellant Jintu Jha [in Cr. Appeal
(S.J.) No.157 of 2025]. It is submitted that the appellants have no
criminal antecedent. It is submitted that the appellant namely,
Ranjeet Kumar Jha was in custody during trial for around five
months twenty four days and appellant namely, Jintu Jha was in
custody for around six months and ten days and thereafter they
are in custody since 18.01.2025 after passing of judgment of
conviction by learned Trial court and as such, the appellants may
be enlarged on bail.
4. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for bail
and has submitted that although seizure list witnesses were
declared hostile by the prosecution, but P.W. 1, namely
Hawaldar Harihar Prasad, P.W.-6, namely Deobrat Poddar, P.W.-
7 namely Albinus Indwar, P.W.-8, namely Krishna Kumar Sahu
and P.W.-9 namely, Dhirendra Yadav have fully supported the
prosecution case. It is submitted that P.W.-6, namely Deo Brat
Poddar is the informant of the case who have supported the
prosecution case. It is submitted that P.W.-10- Nitiyanand
Pathak is the Sargent Manor and who had tested the pistol and
air gun and found the same to be effective and in proper
condition and hence prayer for bail of the appellants may be
rejected.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records
of the learned Trial Court.
6. In course of submission, learned APP has produced the
Gazette Notification regarding nature of weapons, which are
said to be prohibited and restricted and permissible.
7. So far recovery of pistol from appellant, Ranjeet Kumar Jha
in [Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.129 of 2025] is concerned, it appears
that the same is country made pistol.
8. However, so far recovery of Air Gun from possession of
appellant Jintu Jha in [Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.157 of 2025] is
concerned, it appears from the Gazette Notification that the said
arms come in the category of permissible arms under category
III of Part (A) of Schedule- I of the Arms Act.
9. It appears that although the members of the raiding party
including the informant have supported the prosecution case,
however, seizure list witnesses namely Ram Krishna Yadav and
Pinku Kumar Raut, who were examined as P.W.-2 and P.W.-3
and P.W.-4 and P.W.-5, have been declared hostile by the
prosecution.
10. From perusal of evidence of P.W.-6 i.e., the informant, it
would appear that he had arrested the appellants while he was
conducting raid in another case bearing Town P.S. Case No.11 of
2011 against other accused persons instituted under Sections 395
of the I.P.C. However, he could not say the names of any nearby
person at betel gumti, where the appellants were arrested.
11. Considering the facts and in the circumstances of the case,
the appellants namely, Ranjeet Kumar Jha in [Cr. Appeal (S.J.)
No.129 of 2025] and Jintu Jha in [Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.157 of
2025] are directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds
of Rs. 15,000/- (Fifteen thousand only) each, with two sureties of
the like amount each, to the satisfaction of Sri Rajendra Kr.
Sinha, learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Deoghar or his
Successor Court in connection with S.T. Case No.63 of 2018
arising out of Mohanpur P.S. Case No.11 of 2011, corresponding
to G.R. No.51 of 2011.
12. Thus, the aforesaid interlocutory applications are allowed
and stand disposed of.
(Sanjay Prasad, J.)
Rohit/
